FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-26-2010, 10:20 AM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default Looking for testers: RPM 4.9 alpha

It's that time of year again, although there seems to be an off-by-one bug
in the calendar system causing some inconsistency in the timing wrt last
year :P
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-November/042339.html

Anyway, before going to beta and starting the inevitable Fedora Feature
process, we'd like some extra preliminary testing to catch out any major
issues early on.

The alpha isn't supposed to eat your system alive or anything, but proceed
with appropriate cauting, backing up the rpmdb etc, as usual.

The draft release notes are at http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0
and Fedora compatible SRPM(s) can be found at
http://laiskiainen.org/rpm/srpms/

In particular, I'm interested in feedback on the new, pluggable and
enhanced dependency extration system. Documentation is scarce at the
moment but some background and examples can be found here:
http://laiskiainen.org/blog/?p=35

Note that the current SRPM is missing gstreamer plugin, cups driver
and automatic "devel-symlink" dependency generation, on purpose: the
highly application-domain specific gstreamer + cups bits can now be fully
moved out of rpm to gstreamer-devel etc, eliminating the need for
embedding python inside /bin/sh scripts and such to avoid extra
dependencies. The devel-symlink generation will stay in rpm but will
probably change somewhat, it can be handled in a more generic fashion now.

Please report any oddities found, preferably to rpm.org Trac
at http://rpm.org/newticket or rpm-maint list (or here for fedora-specific
discussions/suggestions etc).

P.S. Pjones, before you ask The much wanted ordering-only feature is
not in the alpha, but is likely to make it into beta. The patch itself is
fairly trivial and non-intrusive, we're just trying to figure sane spec
syntax for it (discussion ongoing on rpm-maint)

- Panu -




--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 10:21 AM
Peter Lemenkov
 
Default Looking for testers: RPM 4.9 alpha

2010/11/26 Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@laiskiainen.org>:

> the new, pluggable and enhanced dependency extration system.

That's really awesome!

--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-27-2010, 02:48 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Looking for testers: RPM 4.9 alpha

On 11/26/2010 04:50 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> The draft release notes are at http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0
> and Fedora compatible SRPM(s) can be found at
> http://laiskiainen.org/rpm/srpms/

I am using this now on my Fedora 14 box and I haven't noticed any
obvious breakages. Beyond that, if you want me to test something, let
me know.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-27-2010, 10:36 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Looking for testers: RPM 4.9 alpha

Panu Matilainen wrote:
> The draft release notes are at http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0

1. This change:
| Packages with no files can now omit the %files section and still have
| packages generated.
is going to make it a PITA to conditionalize the building of subpackages,
and it's going to break several existing KDE specfiles very badly (and with
no warning!): RPM will silently generate empty subpackages where none is
wanted.

More precisely, when we wanted to conditionalize or comment out the creation
of a subpackage (e.g. in kde-l10n for languages which are currently not
available), what we did so far was to %if out only the %files section for
the subpackage, not %package or things like %post, and this would reliably
omit the subpackage. Now we'll have to %if out ALL sections referring to the
subpackage: %package to prevent the subpackage from being built, and all
other sections referring to it because they'll error out if the %package is
not there.

2. I presume this:
| Unknown dependency qualifiers are now always treated as errors and abort
| build
also includes Requires(hint), or is that finally used now? The specfiles
maintained or comaintained by Rex Dieter (and they're many!) have
Requires(hint) in many places. If this is really an error now, then that
change is breaking all of KDE and its dependencies and several other
packages in Fedora.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-28-2010, 09:15 AM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default Looking for testers: RPM 4.9 alpha

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> The draft release notes are at http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0
>
> 1. This change:
> | Packages with no files can now omit the %files section and still have
> | packages generated.
> is going to make it a PITA to conditionalize the building of subpackages,
> and it's going to break several existing KDE specfiles very badly (and with
> no warning!): RPM will silently generate empty subpackages where none is
> wanted.
>
> More precisely, when we wanted to conditionalize or comment out the creation
> of a subpackage (e.g. in kde-l10n for languages which are currently not
> available), what we did so far was to %if out only the %files section for
> the subpackage, not %package or things like %post, and this would reliably
> omit the subpackage. Now we'll have to %if out ALL sections referring to the
> subpackage: %package to prevent the subpackage from being built, and all
> other sections referring to it because they'll error out if the %package is
> not there.

This change can be reconsidered.

>
> 2. I presume this:
> | Unknown dependency qualifiers are now always treated as errors and abort
> | build
> also includes Requires(hint), or is that finally used now? The specfiles
> maintained or comaintained by Rex Dieter (and they're many!) have
> Requires(hint) in many places. If this is really an error now, then that
> change is breaking all of KDE and its dependencies and several other
> packages in Fedora.

...but this I've no sympathy for. You're relying on a stupid, longstanding
bug on rpm that makes it accept Requires(randomjunk) in some situations:
in older versions Requires(pre,junk) and Requires(junk) falls through
silently in older versions but eg Requires(junk,pre) - and
Requires(hint,pre) does give an error.

- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-28-2010, 09:47 AM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default Looking for testers: RPM 4.9 alpha

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> On 11/26/2010 04:50 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> The draft release notes are at http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0
>> and Fedora compatible SRPM(s) can be found at
>> http://laiskiainen.org/rpm/srpms/
>
> I am using this now on my Fedora 14 box and I haven't noticed any
> obvious breakages.

Good.

> Beyond that, if you want me to test something, let me know.

The new dependency generator is where I suspect some regressions might be
lurking - try building packages (for example ones that you maintain),
check that all the expected automatic dependencies are there and that it
doesn't fall over in other ways.

- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Sun Nov 28 12:30:01 2010
Return-path: <arch-general-bounces@archlinux.org>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:47:26 +0200
Received: from gerolde.archlinux.org ([66.211.214.132]:49598 helo=archlinux.org)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <arch-general-bounces@archlinux.org>)
id 1PMdqv-00037G-Uc
for tom@linux-archive.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:47:26 +0200
Received: from gudrun.archlinux.org (gudrun.archlinux.org [66.211.214.131])
by archlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07289008A;
Sun, 28 Nov 2010 05:47:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from archlinux.org (gerolde.archlinux.org [66.211.214.132])
by gudrun.archlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472307802B
for <arch-general@archlinux.org>; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 05:47:12 -0500 (EST)
Received-SPF: pass (gmail.com ... _spf.google.com: 74.125.82.172 is authorized
to use 'christos.kotsaris@gmail.com' in 'mfrom' identity
(mechanism 'ip4:74.125.0.0/16' matched))
receiver=gerolde.archlinux.org; identity=mailfrom;
envelope-from="christos.kotsaris@gmail.com";
helo=mail-wy0-f172.google.com; client-ip=74.125.82.172
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com
[74.125.82.172]) by archlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C5190087
for <arch-general@archlinux.org>; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 05:47:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so2518863wyf.3
for <arch-general@archlinux.org>; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:47:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:fromrganization:to:s ubject
:date:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
:message-id; bh=wHuNJRA36vREpWQo4wY56hrict2jkGxxpV2bh595wrE=;
b=LPQhLXHEx560te9TpmIxbz6Dx/kWJtKM3ocXGZLj49WYpev7qkZsoU2MHprPSPLt61
LVZfuSJxgsczyYUufiqDIJIWio/aNQNIqdvQiM8wCtIcZMILgi8esZ7MQGbo2wYHoGCl
ZW7q3IC5QOlHaqsIqT7tyCskrFzlXZEaOHXpo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=fromrganization:to:subject:date:user-agent:mime-version
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id;
b=C8iPPM6VCNwuVCZCVc8pB7OBxTGa1ismJVMmDibtd1xUC/QlnHvjgqN1to59apWpM9
PADx2fCxHSQ/UL7ew2SGErSZFnw9K0eY4Jjp4IhVst6ScF68vr1aqVOiSYnCJi/iGvR6
kFX/54kcpzA/9LOAsOqe02EF4DVndKJ0xg4ck=
Received: by 10.216.13.69 with SMTP id a47mr3803299wea.51.1290941235300;
Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:47:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from christos-desktop.localnet (193.92.138.85.dsl.dyn.forthnet.gr
[193.92.138.85])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm1805341wet.0.2010.11.28.02.47.13
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:47:14 -0800 (PST)
From: =?utf-8?b?zqfPgc6uz4PPhM6/z4IgzprPjs+Ez4POsc+BzrfPgg==?=
<christos.kotsaris@gmail.com>
Organization: TEI =?utf-8?b?zpHOuM6uzr3Osc+C?=
To: arch-general@archlinux.org
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:47:11 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.36-ARCH; KDE/4.5.3; x86_64; ; )
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201011281247.11705.christos.kotsaris@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [arch-general] PulseAudio in [testing]
X-BeenThere: arch-general@archlinux.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
Reply-To: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general@archlinux.org>
List-Id: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general.archlinux.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/options/arch-general>,
<mailto:arch-general-request@archlinux.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general>
List-Post: <mailto:arch-general@archlinux.org>
List-Help: <mailto:arch-general-request@archlinux.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-general>,
<mailto:arch-general-request@archlinux.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: arch-general-bounces@archlinux.org
Errors-To: arch-general-bounces@archlinux.org

Regarding phonon being dropped, after some googling it seems i was mistaken,
what i had read was that Qt framework is dropping phonon, not KDE. But still,
i believe it would be sane to drop phonon in KDE too and replace it with
Pulseaudio, it is the best choice. No need for 2 sound servers when one could
do the trick.

Plus, in case someone says Phonon can switch sound cards without the app
restarting, everytime i try it Amarok and others crash, so yes, it needs
restarting...
 
Old 11-28-2010, 02:49 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Looking for testers: RPM 4.9 alpha

On 11/28/2010 04:17 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> The new dependency generator is where I suspect some regressions might
> be lurking - try building packages (for example ones that you maintain),
> check that all the expected automatic dependencies are there and that
> it doesn't fall over in other ways.

aria2 local build failed locally but is successful if build on Koji. I
am pretty sure it is the new RPM that is causing it to fail and I
screwed up trying to downgrade the package and had to use rpm2cpio to
put everything together again. If you want to test the build, grab the
srpm from

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=206683

Rahul


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-28-2010, 05:52 PM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default Looking for testers: RPM 4.9 alpha

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> On 11/28/2010 04:17 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>
>> The new dependency generator is where I suspect some regressions might
>> be lurking - try building packages (for example ones that you maintain),
>> check that all the expected automatic dependencies are there and that
>> it doesn't fall over in other ways.
>
> aria2 local build failed locally but is successful if build on Koji. I
> am pretty sure it is the new RPM that is causing it to fail and I
> screwed up trying to downgrade the package and had to use rpm2cpio to
> put everything together again. If you want to test the build, grab the
> srpm from
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=206683

Built fine here, dunno. What exactly went wrong with your build? "It
failed" isn't a particularly helpful description.

- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-28-2010, 05:55 PM
Simo Sorce
 
Default Looking for testers: RPM 4.9 alpha

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:15:52 +0200 (EET)
Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@laiskiainen.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> > Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >> The draft release notes are at http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0
> >
> > 1. This change:
> > | Packages with no files can now omit the %files section and still
> > have | packages generated.
> > is going to make it a PITA to conditionalize the building of
> > subpackages, and it's going to break several existing KDE specfiles
> > very badly (and with no warning!): RPM will silently generate empty
> > subpackages where none is wanted.
> >
> > More precisely, when we wanted to conditionalize or comment out the
> > creation of a subpackage (e.g. in kde-l10n for languages which are
> > currently not available), what we did so far was to %if out only
> > the %files section for the subpackage, not %package or things like
> > %post, and this would reliably omit the subpackage. Now we'll have
> > to %if out ALL sections referring to the subpackage: %package to
> > prevent the subpackage from being built, and all other sections
> > referring to it because they'll error out if the %package is not
> > there.
>
> This change can be reconsidered.

Wouldn't it be better instead to create a specific directive to disable
unwanted subpackages ?

Something like:
%suppress <subpackagename>

This would make it clear what the author of the RPMs wants to do w/o
relying on hacks like suppressing the %files section.

Bonus if it checks the suppressed package %files for installed files
that need to be skipped even if "not packaged" so as to not error out.

Simo.

--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 05:50 AM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default Looking for testers: RPM 4.9 alpha

Le dimanche 28 novembre 2010 à 12:15 +0200, Panu Matilainen a écrit :
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> > Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >> The draft release notes are at http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0
> >
> > 1. This change:
> > | Packages with no files can now omit the %files section and still have
> > | packages generated.
> > is going to make it a PITA to conditionalize the building of subpackages,
> > and it's going to break several existing KDE specfiles very badly (and with
> > no warning!): RPM will silently generate empty subpackages where none is
> > wanted.
> >
> > More precisely, when we wanted to conditionalize or comment out the creation
> > of a subpackage (e.g. in kde-l10n for languages which are currently not
> > available), what we did so far was to %if out only the %files section for
> > the subpackage, not %package or things like %post, and this would reliably
> > omit the subpackage. Now we'll have to %if out ALL sections referring to the
> > subpackage: %package to prevent the subpackage from being built, and all
> > other sections referring to it because they'll error out if the %package is
> > not there.
>
> This change can be reconsidered.

I use this bit too though I'd rather have an explcit way to kill a
subpackage rather than relying on empty %files

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:55 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org